Weapon Modules
#1
Posted 29 November 2015 - 03:00 PM
I'm sure there could be cool but not overwhelmingly complicated ideas to push this even further. Share ideas!
#2
Posted 29 November 2015 - 03:04 PM
#3
Posted 29 November 2015 - 03:19 PM
This was suggested to remove the loadout lock-in that happens from current chassis quirks.
#4
Posted 29 November 2015 - 03:26 PM
This would help to eliminate the issue of stacking modules (range and refresh rate) for a single weapon type. This would not adversely affect boating - but what it would force players to make a choice in their load outs.
Edited by Simbacca, 29 November 2015 - 03:27 PM.
#5
Posted 29 November 2015 - 03:37 PM
#6
Posted 29 November 2015 - 03:47 PM
Mech has...
3 LPL and some meds - One Slot On mech to start and Two extras for the Weapons systems. So you can take a LPL Cooldown and a Medium range and then pick a LPL range or a Medium Cooldown if the mech allows it.
Have a Fs9 with all SPL lasers- 2 Weapons Slots
Lets say you like to be a mixed loadout pilot...
Atlas with AC20, Medium Lasers SRM6 and SRM4's - 5 modules slots for Weapons.
This is in my opinion a way to make it a decision...boat and be good at one thing. Mix you loadout and maybe be good at a few things. Keeps mechs like light and such with there one trick pony roles they are often good at (Close range laser boat, Narc Mech, etc.) But allows an atlas or other mechs to be proficient at killing things that get close and maybe even launching its guns far to stop enemies at range.
i just see it as more diversity, but they have used it currently as a balancing mechanic before quirks were even a big thing.
#7
Posted 29 November 2015 - 07:32 PM
#8
Posted 29 November 2015 - 11:47 PM
Simbacca, on 29 November 2015 - 03:26 PM, said:
This would help to eliminate the issue of stacking modules (range and refresh rate) for a single weapon type. This would not adversely affect boating - but what it would force players to make a choice in their load outs.
It's hard enough for PGI to balance Clan lasers with IS lasers. We don't need more thrown in to the mix.
#9
Posted 30 November 2015 - 01:09 AM
I treat it as user defined quirks. Hence it should not be too many.
Mechs like DDC have less module slots because it has ECM, which also limited its actual quirks. But I rather not go there.
What I would like are more module options.
But anyway, weapon modules are SOOOOO expensive, I only get them on 50% sale. I don't play well enough to need that extra 12.5% to make a difference. I rather spend it on more seismic / Zoom (and maybe Decay / Radar Derp) for all my CW mechs
Other than cooldown and range, I would like all the other quirk variations as modules - lower heat gen, tighter spread, faster lock, better twist speed / angle etc
#10
Posted 30 November 2015 - 05:01 AM
takkom, on 29 November 2015 - 03:00 PM, said:
I'm sure there could be cool but not overwhelmingly complicated ideas to push this even further. Share ideas!
I'm not convinced they promote boating, as that was around before the modules. It's also hard in a light or medium not to boat, due to the lack of space available, so any change would either be neutral or detrimental to half of the weight classes.
There is also the problem that adding more module slots is a massive boost to those in the end game and have spare CBills lying around. If you add in one extra slot that's more GXP and CBills needed, by everyone, to get their mech up to "competitive" standing, so expect a lot of butts to be kicked whilst people take the now longer march to fully speced.
#11
Posted 30 November 2015 - 12:44 PM
Modules are far too expensive to be much of a factor for the slight boost you get. I own MAYBE 3 or so weapon modules and use none of them. I've never used them. They have zero impact on choosing my mech and design purposes.
#12
Posted 30 November 2015 - 01:24 PM
I would love to use seismic, radar dep, target info gathering, advance target delay, hill climb and shock absorbance and would give up 2 weapon modules to carry that many. Some mech modules just don't get used. Give us the opportunity to use them!
#13
Posted 30 November 2015 - 01:33 PM
I agree it'd be a good and simple way to incentivize mixed loadouts.
#14
Posted 30 November 2015 - 01:40 PM
#15
Posted 30 November 2015 - 01:50 PM
It is unquestionable - the current Ghost Heat system encourages users to mount a variety of weapons.
"I'm hot. No, I'm cold."
"Im hungry for ice cream. Look at how fat I am."
You know what this reminds me of?
We should remove weapon modules, and replace them with weapon "Adjustment Sliders" that let you tune your weapons in terms of range, decide rate, etc.
Adjustments should cost CBills and require GXP to unlock the sliders. Tuning changes should be made on a per-chassis basis. That way you have to tune each Mech, and not take your tuned Lasers with you from Mech to Mech.
#16
Posted 30 November 2015 - 03:49 PM
Prosperity Park, on 30 November 2015 - 01:50 PM, said:
It is unquestionable - the current Ghost Heat system encourages users to mount a variety of weapons.
"I'm hot. No, I'm cold."
"Im hungry for ice cream. Look at how fat I am."
You know what this reminds me of?
We should remove weapon modules, and replace them with weapon "Adjustment Sliders" that let you tune your weapons in terms of range, decide rate, etc.
Adjustments should cost CBills and require GXP to unlock the sliders. Tuning changes should be made on a per-chassis basis. That way you have to tune each Mech, and not take your tuned Lasers with you from Mech to Mech.
Id also rather see it like this...
Rather then Modules i can use on any mech id rather invest the 1mill or 3 mill for my Fs9-H to be mo betta with Medium Lasers.....
SO i unlock some range sliders and maybe get the cooldown even lower...but it would be THAT mech and THAT mech ONLY that had the access to that tech. Because i tuned and built the mech from the ground up basising it off that tech.
Should also make PGI happy as its a huge cbill sink. Want multiple mechs of the same variant with different loadouts...well then better pony up for them.
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users